Improved hearing protector attenuation through the use of a lubricant

A Review of MRI Acoustic Noise Outputs and Hearing Protection Device Performance

The acoustic noise outputs of MR equipment typically require a hearing protection device (HPD) to minimize the likelihood of patient hearing loss. Several different ways to quantify HPD performance have been developed and adopted over many years in different countries across the world (eg, NRR, SNR, SLC80). These HPD evaluations are done in controlled laboratory conditions, following different standardized methodologies, producing different performance ratings for the same HPD, and consequently of a variable relationship with achieved real-world usage performance assessments. Conversely, the MR manufacturers follow one standard (NEMA MS-4) which strives to produce a worst-case peak and average acoustic noise output measurement. Measuring the acoustic output of MR equipment is a complex undertaking in the confined patient space, especially when considering the variability of what is in the patient imaging space. Given both the MR equipment acoustic output measurements and the HPD performance rating, it is theoretically possible to estimate the worst-case patient exposure level, subject to the uncertainty of how successfully the protection was applied and population variability. An assessment, shown here, suggests that the worst-case outputs from the loudest MR equipment requires the best passive HPD performance presently available in order to meet patient protection guidelines, but only when the HPD is properly deployed. However, when considering government agency derating recommendations that estimate protection achieved during practical application, the various metrics are not consistent in confirming that the best HPD provide sufficient protection. This paper reviews the challenges of determining and providing sufficient hearing protection. The correct deployment of HPD, and its verification, is thus a critical factor in ensuring adequate patient protection and the main concern of this review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

The efficacy of earplugs at a major hazard facility

At a major hazard facility, cases of occupational noise-induced hearing loss have occurred despite the use of hearing protection devices. Preliminary measurements of personal attenuation ratings (PAR) suggested that earplugs may not achieve the attenuation implied by their Australian SLC80 Class designation in field-use conditions. We examined the relationship between PAR and the SLC80 classification for earplugs, as a good understanding of the attenuation provided by earplugs under normal field-use conditions, rather than in laboratory settings, is vital to their effective use as a control measure for noise exposure. A cross-sectional study was performed with 65 volunteers. Participants were recruited from Operations and Maintenance Technicians at the major hazard facility. The participants had their PARs checked with different earplug types using the 3 M™ E-A-Rfit™ system. We examined the PARs measured and also assigned a 'pass' or 'fail' rating depending on whether the earplug achieved 22 dB attenuation. 22 dB attenuation for 80% of users is the minimum to meet the definition for Australian SLC80 Class 4 hearing protection. None of the earplug types achieved 22 dB attenuation for 80% of users when tested in field-use conditions. There were statistically significant differences in the frequency of achieving a 'Pass', and in PAR, depending on earplug type. Roll-down foam earplugs may provide superior attenuation compared to pre-moulded earplugs. Earplugs are unlikely to achieve the attenuation found in laboratory conditions during field-use. Personalised selection of hearing protection devices based on fit-testing results should be encouraged.